Rape Culture: The Media View.

I don't want to dive too deep into a personal issue but, this probably stems from his own experiences. This is seen in his rhetoric that demonizes the rapists. He expresses (in other words) that they are inhuman, worthy of nothing but, the utmost contempt. Demonetization in others is often a way for people to comfort themselves from a harsh reality. For example, the government demonizes terrorists and paints them as subhuman and opposed to all that is socially and morally decent. When in reality, they are lashing out over years of terrible U.S. foreign policy.

tl;dr I think it's Jacob's personal experiences that prevent him from accepting the logic that others, such as you, are proposing on the subject.

You sit there and preach your opinions when in all likelyhood you've never been raped or sexually assaulted. Cause I have never met a single victim of sexual assault or rape that has sympathy for these criminals. It's highly pretentious to sit on your high throne and claim some higher moral standard.

What nonsense is this? If anyone is being pretentious then it's you. By being a rape victim you are somehow more qualified to make an objective statement about other people of a certain demographic than the rest of humanity. You're almost one step away from foaming at the mouth screaming "Hang them all" at the top of your lungs from the look of it.

What if I was to tell you I'm the product of rape. Do my opinions have any merit now? What if I was to add that I was molested as a child? Are my opinions somehow more valid now than if I wasn't? You've somehow managed to turn being a rape victim into an elitist club.

It people like you who create a cyclical system of incarceration, release and re-incarceration for felons because you treat them as subhuman. What those two morons did was wrong on several levels but, that doesn't reduce them to a subhuman species that we all can deride as the new national pastime.

You have to treat someone as subhuman to even commit a crime of assault or murder. No rational intellectual civilized human being would treat another human being in that kind of way. So why should I see them as any different? But oh wait, I know this arguement, about being the better person, being more civil. But isn't that just another excuse to say that you are superior to someone by not acting the way they do. That is highly contradictory.

And yes it would make your opinion more valid.

Who would you trust to do a life saving surgery, the doctor who has already done a surgery good or bad or the person who googles their answers and thinks they know the truth. Any sane minded person would pick the person who has lived through an event because they have first hand knowledge.

You have to lose your humanity to treat another human in such a way to commit rape, you have seen that person that you have raped as less than human, as just an object for your pleasure. They have no more value than a lamp, or table. See the issue isn't me, it's people like you who want to treat everyone with compassion and equality and sympathy that has allowed society to turn into the hell hole that it is, a society of no accountablitity where you're either a criminal or a spoiled brat on the internet thinking they know everything.

The athletes are a source of pride for Ohio, I bet that the girl was slutty anyway..

I followed this case a bit, and from what I observed, those two did get off rather light, but the great thing in this country is that we go by a Rule of Law, and we have a system that at least tries to ensure fairness in a trial of any sort.

Now, granted that in about a year or so, an agency is going to make a recommendation to the courts, (or corrections facility, I'll need to look into that), as to whether or not those two should go free, or if they should stay behind bars much longer.

I was a bit disappointed with how CNN handled the reporting, but they chose to rape a girl and that cost them their futures.

As much as those that hated those two wanted them practically hung, or mutilated in some way, shape, or form, it's not up to us as to how people should be punished, but the courts. Afterall, throw the rules out for one case, then you gotta do that for every other case that follows, and that wouldn't be a pretty site.

As to this whole rape culture business; I don't think this case has that rape culture, per say, but rather, more of a sports culture and a way of thinking that school athletes are somehow entitled to a little leeway to do things that Joe Somebody would get into serious trouble for.

One thing that rubbed me the wrong way was that the teammates that testified against those two got immunity for their testimony. Although I think they should be sitting alongside those two, nothing I, or anybody, could do about it.

Your personal experiences make you exorbitantly bias on this topic.



Rational, intellectual, and civilized people don't foam at the mouth with fanaticism either. You have the fervor of a Westboro baptist church member when asked if gays go to hell.



If anyone is claiming superiority towards another group it's you for referring to them as sub-human. You can't criticize me for taking the "don't sink to their level" approach compared to your "they are less than human so damn them all" approach. They are people who screwed up on a massive scale but, they don't deserve to be labeled as "less human" than anyone else.



This is a horrid analogy that is a textbook example of the False analogy fallacy. A surgeon who spent 9 to 14 years between school and residency would obviously be the better choice. However, your status as a rape victim doesn't give you the qualifications equivalent to someone with 9-14 years of training. However, with that being said, if this discussion was on the psychological effects of rape on the victim, you would be more than qualified than anyone else. Unfortunately for you we are NOT discussing the psychological effects of rape on a person but, instead discussing whether or not a rapist qualifies as "sub-human". Which in order to end the argument in something other than squabbling we should first define what it means to be "human" in more than just the scientific/biological definition.



Simplistic idea for a complex problem. Various studies and experts argue about the causes of rape. Some of which include sexual pleasure, socioeconomics, power, sadism, anger, psychopathy, ethical standards. So one can not simply use an umbrella term for all of these examples. In India men of lower class status will rape a woman of higher class status because of anger/jealousy of her wealth compared to their own. In heavily Islamic countries such as Pakistan men will rape women because of what is considered a cultural norm. For example, a wife can not refuse sex to her husband because she will be considered a "Nushuz". If I recall there are exceptions during the Hajj, when she's menstruating, though she still has to gratify him in non-vaginal ways.



Where did I say that rapists shouldn't be held accountable for their actions? Perhaps you should understand my point of view before jumping to conclusions, eh champ? You can hold people accountable for their actions without having to reduce them to sub-human beasts. What those two morons did was deplorable and worthy of condemnation. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows and denied any chance of probation. With that being said, I won't go so far as to declare them as sub-human because that in itself is inhuman.

All of this is not the topic of this thread, and I would prefer if the thread went back on topic.

Also apologies in advance if something I wrote is confusing, annoying hangover is looming over me...

If you keep making up statistics I'm not going to answer you properly.

If that's all you got from my post then that's fine. You can derive what you will but I wrote out my thoughts and feelings, to the best of my ability (so that no one can, easily, misunderstand) because I wanted too.

I said what I wanted, you read it (maybe, or at least saw that I wrote it) so I'm contempt.

I imagine you were the one who gave me a negative rep? And I'll assume the philosophy behind this post was the reasoning in mind for your negative vote. Yet, your philosophy doesn't constitute reality on several fundamental levels.

Firstly, let's address your insane suggestion that the judge was bias'd to judge the criminals as juveniles and not adults. In terms of biological age(16) this is actually the correct ruling. This biological age and ruling is supported by scientific fact:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124119468

In fact, our development doesn't stop until around age 25-ish or so. Truthfully, biological doesn't necessarily rule over every day reality. I can find numerous adults who act as childish as children, actually their 'childish' behavior is
in large part due to the adults that oversee them.


However, for the consistency that the rule of law tries to reach I concur with science. As I told Jacob, and now I will tell you for your future reference: The Courts are duty bound, not to provide a lynching service but to uphold the rule of law.

Next, I know that many feminists and many feminist supporters are delusioned about the way the world works. But,let's get one thing out of the way: In the past, women were in fact superior to men.

Men sacrificed themselves in the name of war, to defend their country. The idea of a woman participating in war was unthinkable. And let us not be so delusioned as to think war was a game for these men. Far before Call of Duty trivialized the manner, many men died painfully, slowly and in many unspeakable ways.

And yes, they too were raped in warfare. There is no "rapist side", as FPOD acknowledged but many people seemingly can't read: Rape is about control, violence and dominance. Its about unspeakable cruelty.

The same was the case in civil life, many men dreamed of becoming fathers. There was once equal dignity in fatherhood as in motherhood. However, a father cannot be without a mother. This is not only the case biologically but in reality.

A father, does not by large have the mother's psychological nourishment, her love and devotion. Neither too, did the mother have the economic advantages of the father.

Marriage, or unison between the mother and the father compensated for each other's biological and social weaknesses. Love being the key component which tied the two beings together.

Not only did Feminism destroy the biological connection between men and women, it also managed to destroy the concept of love.

The woman had everything, she had a loving and devoted partner. She had financial security and she had the family she longed for. She had, what she's 'searching' for today.

Perfect example of Feminine Hypocrisy: These social groups complained about the Beauty Pageants. To them, it was exploitation.

And yet, look at porn today! Prostitution? So, do Feminists oppose exploitation? No, they oppose any self conceived notion of 'oppression'.

What the men didn't ask, during these political times was how exactly was it oppressing for women to for example wear dresses and high quality clothing? By golly, they ask for it in bunches when men shopped for their clothes!

If it's so oppressing, then stop buying those type of clothes.

The men should have challenged the feminists as to the reality of their claims. About the only thing the feminists had correct, was the difference in job privilege between a man and a woman.

And even now, career women find it biologically and socially difficult to juggle between family and career. In her 'oppressed' times, she didn't have to juggle. The man took on half of the responsibilities.

The feminist, in a nut shell is the proverbial idiot in the village who somehow screams the loudest.

Why npr?! ~grumble, bitch, moan.... read...~
Ignoring development, since... (too much to go into). What I disagree with or find lacking.

1


2


3














I read your "feminist" rant to see if you would have anything worth replying too...

I did find the...
"...she didn't have to juggle."
Mildly amusing, you accidentally made it sound like it was always a "choice".

Please don't waste my time with this nonsense. Learn to separate your desires from what you "perceive as facts" from what has been "proven as fact". You really suggest to me you know nothing of science, so please don't quote to me with any more of "your science".

Also a small tip, "women" don't like being lumped together, as if their all the same, they are individuals each with their own desires and will.

(I know I'm contradicting myself but...) A woman is not less than a man, incapable of being able to do "anything" other than take care of a child. Your degradation of women is annoying, don't preach to me this crap, I don't want to play your delusional game.

Learn to stick to the topic as opposed to degrading everything to a feminist bashing/chauvinistic rant. I can already tell that this is not a debate, say whatever you will, but there is nothing you can say that will ever make me think otherwise, I've already decided on what you have to contribute to my growth of knowledge and I do not want it. You were an interesting experience but I've done what I set out to accomplish. Thank you for that much.

I "stuck" to the topic, thank you very much. It was you who started on the notion of female inequality. Your only proof of which was the bible, and several quotes were highly taken out of context! You then had the gall to directly quote the bible and ascribe to it "European/Asian History", I was unaware Babylon, Israel and Egypt were ever a part of the Roman Empire, or the Eskimos(The early descendants of Asians).

You then arrogantly proclaim "my science" as if I promoted a form of science different from acknowledged biological differences of a man and a woman, or that of a developing human brain.

No, it doesn't excuse them. But it does rationalize things and rationalization allows us to make proper rulings. Unlike those of the witch crusades which you pointed out.

Ah, excuse me, yes, the "choice". This is what Feminism's lasting legacy is, the ability to make a "choice" to be a careerwoman. And, what gains has she had for her choice? Individually, she might be getting paid more but she's taxed higher. Including child bearing, she finds herself right back where she left off.

Families as a whole are getting taxed more, so the husband can no longer be as reliable of a source as he was in the past. Biologically, feminism has only accomplished equality in suffering.

These are socio economic observations that anyone with an unbiased outlook can see. We've declined in the last 30 years, and among several social developments, this is the second biggest one only to NAFTA. In this case, correlation does equal causation.

Lastly, you make a mockery of my intelligence by proclaiming I degrade women. Never did I say women are strictly mothers. I simply said that the entirety of womanhood is her highest quality. Just as a man's highest quality is his ability to produce socially and economically.

Am I being sexist against the male? You cannot proclaim that I'm being sexist against females, while saying I'm not sexist against males. I'm a Social Darwinist, a woman's greatest strength is in her emotional and reproductive capabilities. She holds the very fate of the Human Race in the palm of her hands.

Without the Queen Bee, a colony is dead. If that's not power, then what is?

Haha, I'm proven wrong :D. Though, this is more the expansion of territory rather than the Middle eastern lands or mythology making their way into Western concepts.

In fact, stories have it the other way around as the Christian Crusades took down Rome, installing Christianity in a former Pagan State.

My point was just as America wasn't a "Christian Nation", most of the Western nations weren't indoctrinated in religious propaganda.

Hence why we don't have suicide bombers in the name of Allah. We just have a self sabotaging group of Americans IMO.

I can't really speak to much about the roman empire, because my world history is a little rusty. It was throught that christianity was one of the reason why rome fell, but there were also societal pressues, economic downfalling, over expansion, etc.

I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility to think that america was a christian nation origionally. The pilgrims that came across the ocean were christian, and converted the natives to christianity. The only point in american history where christianity was denounced in any form was with the constitution and the founding fathers trying to keep a division between state and religion. Which obviously failed, there hasn't been a recent president elected that hasn't run on some form of god talk.

It is true though, we don't have suicide bombers and "thank god" for that. But that is not to say we don't have extremists on the same level as suicide terrorists, they are just masked as patriotic soldiers or the westborrow baptist church.

Rape is scary. I'm more androgynous *I'm quite cute* so I understand both views.
Its like...I worry about the tsa molesting me at the airport while a normal guy is sitting there playing call of duty.
Getting kidnapped into prostitution is also a real fear.

Its a topic best discussed..but not by me

this may seem excessive to some but as a man I do belive rape should be punished by death its a bit of a honor thing for me so not by the government but by the victim or the husband/boyfriend/etc of the victim bit off topic but sex in a relationship has high value to people like me its a set code a connection between two who trust care and love each other so any sexual activity outside of a relationship happening during a relationship is the person in the relationship taking the other persons honor(cheating is punished by death in my belief)unless they had no control over the situation such as during rape but then its the rapist stealing both the victims and the other persons honor and to my beliefs only way to regain that honor is to kill the one who stole it

My only response to the above post is the expansion of feminist ideals into our society. It's great and all to think that sex should be kept between two people in a relationship and that sex outside of a relationship has no honor, but feminist idiology has taken over the majority of young women today who believe they are entitled to have as much sexual activity as they want with no consequences. Now I'm all for the freedom to be with whoever you want to be with, and I'll even accept that some people just want a one night stand, but when you see women who are with 5 or more different guys in a month, to me that person is a slut. There's no sense of morals or commitment behind sleeping around. Least to mention that the more partners a person has, the more likely the risk of getting an STD, and it also has adverse effects on the body. (ei. women become loose)